Dear Wilhelmus,

I am intrigued by how you essentially describe our physics' parameters as flexible borders, centered in the Human Mind. It is refreshing to see this view expressed, not only in terms of physics (your treatment of Qubits was most intriguing), but with references to metaphysical concepts.

This shows confidence in the fact that what is at one time metaphysical becomes in time 'physical'.

I myself describe a cosmic paradigm of correlated energy vortices that includes the evolving observer - a participant in the field of reality who makes decisions at every moment, and over a very long period of time, during which his relation to the physical world - his own biological configuration, if you will - is continuously altered.

You might be interested to see how I treat this evolutionary argument as a realist interpretation of the field of reality, thus expanding the definitions of It and Bit far beyond those signified by Wheeler, and concluding that their interaction is one of continuous and simultaneous shifts - or more precisely, correlation.

I believe my perspective provides a structure you might find useful.

I have rated your essay, of course, and hope you will soon visit my page.

All the Best!

John.

    Dear Wilhelmus,

    I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments.

    Regards and good luck in the contest,

    Sreenath BN.

    http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

      Dear Wilhelmus,

      Thanks for your kind comments on my essay and also for rating it. I will soon go through your essay and post my comments on it and rate it too.

      Regards,

      Sreenath

      BTW - I have rated your essay highly and was wondering if you found my essay worthy of the same consideration?

      Manuel

      Dear Wilhelmus,

      Yours is the only essay I have come so far across in the essay contest that answers what Wheelar expected when he put forth the question "IT FROM BIT OR BIT FROM IT". Because when Wheelar put forth the question he wanted the total review of our whole epistemological considerations philosophically and you have rightly grasped his intensions and accordingly treated the problem. Your discovery of the concepts Crealities and Primal Sequence have guided you in this endeavor. You have clearly stated how quantum mechanics can be explained from the neurological functions of the brain which implies mind, consciousness and sub consciousness. The problems of time and space are dealt with satisfactorily from your above considerations. Your conclusion that "REAL FREE WILL is residing not in our causal Creality of the universe but in the non-causal infinity" seems fantastic. The role played by mind and consciousness in grasping the reality in its various forms through information is simply imaginative and so is your concept of "qubit consciousness". We both have similar approach in seeking answer to the question raised by Wheelar through the role played by mind.

      As a result, I have rated your essay with maximum honors possible and wish you best of luck in the essay contest.

      Sreenath

      Thank you Don,

      As a response to my last essay you mentioned to have a "very good idea" when I read your essay of this contest , indeed it is opening new thinking, the duality of a personality that is created by becoming someone else is also a way of a critical mind to find new ideas.

      best of luck, I rated you highly

      Wilhelmus

      Dear Sreenath,

      I am very glad to meet someone who is in line with my thoughts.

      Of course these are only thoughts based on the knowledge that is acquired until now, and that time "until now" is only a causal recreation of a time line, so the "eternal now moment" that is the origin of its creality (creation of history), so my perceptions are now valid for me but in the future and I hope that mankind will have a long future nothing is secure, only our thoughts of today can help to improve the possible futures.

      I really thank you for your rating.

      Wilhelmus

      Dear Wilhelmus,

      Great essay. I liked the fact that you are unafraid to convey new concepts and that you are even willing to coin new terms! I think that it is going to be necessary that we do such things in order to advance our understanding of reality. We need to develop a new language of words and phrases that help us reinterpret our worldview.

      Again, thank you for your contribution of new thoughts and ideas.

      Best to you,

      Ralph

        My dear alter ego Wilhelmus,

        I give you the cosmological iSeries which spans the entire numerical spectrum from -infinity through 0 to +infinity and the simple principle underlying it is sum of any two consecutive numbers is the next number in the series. 0 is the base seed and i can be any seed between 0 and infinity. This could be the Primal Sequence you are looking for.

        iSeries always yields two sub semi series, each of which has 0 as a base seed and 2i as the first seed.

        One of the sub series is always defined by the equation

        Sn = 2 * Sn-1 + Sigma (i=2 to n) Sn-i

        where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2 * i

        the second sub series is always defined by the equation

        Sn = 3 * Sn-1 -Sn-2

        where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2 * i

        Division of consecutive numbers in each of these subseries always eventually converges on 2.168 which is the Square of 1.618.

        Union of these series always yields another series which is just a new iSeries of a 2i first seed and can be defined by the universal equation

        Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2

        where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2*i

        Division of consecutive numbers in the merged series always eventually converges on 1.618 which happens to be the golden ratio "Phi".

        Fibonacci series is just a subset of the iSeries where the first seed or S1 =1.

        Examples

        starting iSeries governed by Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2

        where i = 0.5, S0 = 0 and S1 = 0.5

        -27.5 17 -10.5 6.5 -4 2.5 -1.5 1 -.5 .5 0 .5 .5 1 1.5 2.5 4 6.5 10.5 17 27.5

        Sub series governed by Sn = 2 * Sn-1 + Sigma (i=2 to n) Sn-i

        where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1

        0 1 2 5 13 34 ...

        Sub series governed by Sn = 3 * Sn-1 - Sn-2

        where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1

        0 1 3 8 21 55 ...

        Merged series governed by Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2 where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1

        0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 ...... (Fibonacci series is a subset of iSeries)

        The above equations hold true for any value of I, hence agreeing to your concept of qbits and not just bits.

        As per Antony Ryan's suggestion, I searched google to see how Fibonacci type series can be used to explain Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity and found an interesting article.

        http://msel-naschie.com/pdf/The-Fibonacci-code-behind-super.pdf

        Now that I split the Fibonacci series in to two semi series, seems like each of the sub semi series corresponds to QM and GR and together they explain the Quantum Gravity. Seems like this duality is a commonality in nature once relativity takes effect or a series is kicked off from a basic singularity. The only commonality between the two series is at the base seed 0 (singularity) and first seed 1, which are the bits in our binary system.

        I am attaching the iDNASeries.bmp that I have envisioned and how it shows the DNA structure in its sequence. Its interesting to see the singularity is in the base seed of zero and how it is all pervasive all through out the DNA structure in the attached image. I have been telling that I is that nothing which dwells in everything and this DNA structure seems to prove that notion. Singularity is right with in the duality. Absolute is right with in the relativity. This proves that both of these states of singularity and duality are interconnected and are the source of life.

        Love,

        Sridattadev.Attachment #1: 6_iDNASeries.bmp

          Hello Wilhelmus

          Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html)

          said: "It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the relationship. And example of this is the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg formulation of quantum mechanics. I don't know why that is - it remains a mystery, but it was something I learned from experience. There is always another way to say the same thing that doesn't look at all like the way you said it before. I don't know what the reason for this is. I think it is somehow a representation of the simplicity of nature."

          I too believe in the simplicity of nature, and I am glad that Richard Feynman, a Nobel-winning famous physicist, also believe in the same thing I do, but I had come to my belief long before I knew about that particular statement.

          The belief that "Nature is simple" is however being expressed differently in my essay "Analogical Engine" linked to http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1865 .

          Specifically though, I said "Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities" and I put it schematically as: wave-particle ~ quantum-classical ~ gene-protein ~ analogy- reasoning ~ linear-nonlinear ~ connected-notconnected ~ computable-notcomputable ~ mind-body ~ Bit-It ~ variation-selection ~ freedom-determinism ... and so on.

          Taken two at a time, it can be read as "what quantum is to classical" is similar to (~) "what wave is to particle." You can choose any two from among the multitudes that can be found in our discourses.

          I could have put Schrodinger wave ontology-Heisenberg particle ontology duality in the list had it comes to my mind!

          Since "Nature is Analogical", we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And you have touched some corners of it.

          Good Luck,

          Than Tin

            Dear Than,

            The "simplicity" of nature is that our reality is only ONE of the infinity available.

            The dualities you are mentioning are not only represented by their extremities but also by the infinity of states in between these extremities.(see my essay). LIFE is in between birth and death, so the richness is infinite and life is the line of chosen infinite available points of "each" Eternal Now moment.(point on a Bloch sphere).

            I enjoyed very much your submission

            and thank you for the attention you gave to mine.

            Wilhelmus

            Dear Sridattadev,

            When you use formula's you lose me, I tried hard but just did not arrive to understand it.

            What I do understand is your text :

            "I is nothing that dwells in Everything"

            You are telling here the same as I do only I formulate it like this :

            The non-causal part of our consciousness (the Eternal (GOD) part if you want)

            is as a singularity that is the same as ALL singularities that have the choice of ALL available pasts and futures. So essentially we are ALL the same but in our causal prison we are different because each causal part of consciousness is through its contact with its non-causal part able to experience time-life- lines that seem different but are originating in the same eternity (Total Simultaneity).

            best regards

            and also Love

            Wilhelmus

            Dear Wilhelmus,

            Thank you for appreciating my essay.

            If I suppose that the Universe is information. And if I also suppose that the Universe is built from simple to more complex. Which system, to choose, a simple binary, or complex decimal ?

            I rated your essay.

            And good luck.

            Please visit My essay.

              Thank you Amazigh,

              Two times "suppose",

              is binary "simple" ? No it is just the possibility of two choices.

              Which does not mean that other choices cannot be made.

              Even decimal is only 10 choices.

              I think that choices and free will are infinite.

              Wilhelmus

              Dear Wilhelmus,

              I want to let you know that I have read your very interesting essay. I found myself in agreement with your discussion of 'Crealtity' formation, (which I have been calling Image reality) but a bit lost when you got to the primal sequence. I'm not quite sure why, in your opinion, all times should be available to the subconscious mind. (You may have explained in the essay but it has slipped my mind, as I read it some time ago).

              Having said that, looking out into space there is potential sensory data that can be received from near present to light years back in time.It just depends what data is received in what order, to form the observer's 'Creality' including the subjective passage of time. But in everyday life the time span is limited by the distance of objects in the environment from the observer and so the time it takes for data to travel from source to observer. (Tell me if I'm not thinking about it in the correct way). By the way, you may find Ken Wharton's essay very interesting, I did.

              Anyway an enjoyable, thought provoking essay. Good luck ,Georgina

              dear Georgina,

              I waited a long time for your visit, (polished the house, made tea etc) but here you are . Thanks for the rating.

              Now about "sub-consciousness". I think that there is a difference between the so called sub-consciousness and the non-causal part of our consciousness. You could align them as follows :

              non-causal consciousness in Total Simultaneity : has "contact", this is not the good expression, it is embedded in all available pasts and futures should be a better description.

              sub-consciousness : in relation with the non-causal part and the causal part of consciousness, but closer to the non-causal part in TS, but then again how close is entanglement ? We just are failing to express these perceptions.

              causal part of consciousness that is imprisoned in the what we are calling "dimensions", causality and space. The causal part is existing only during our "lives" but is also entangled with its non-causal part. Only we have no control (yet) of whole UNIT, so we cannot influence the "choices" of our non-causal part. If that would be so (perhaps in a future) we would be able to realise the best past without all the misery that we are experiencing "now".

              so ALL pasts are in principle available , but we are only living one life-line. This is not the same as parallel worlds as I explained in my earlier essays, because availability has nothing to do with so called other "existing" universes.

              You see that our present life-line is telling us about light, black holes and so on, it is our mutual life line that is created through decoherence. It is only one the infinite amount of histories "available".

              The "observer" is its consciousness (singularity) surrounded by its Subjective Simultaneity Sphere (SSS), the incoming data are treated by our senses (only 5 for us, there are more , see dark force and so on) so our partial experienced reality is once processed by our senses and system already history once we are aware of it. It is our consciousness that is ligning up the for the individual by its SSS collected data that creates the causal reality.

              I know it is difficult to understand, but I am still trying to find the appropriate words.

              Good luck to you also Georgina, and perhaps you will visit me again, I await you.

              Wilhelmus

                Dear

                I gave you rating *.

                Thank you for presenting your nice essay. So you can produce matter from your thinking or from information description of that matter. . . . ?

                I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.

                I failed mainly because I worked against the main stream. The main stream community people want magic from science instead of realty especially in the subject of cosmology. We all know well that cosmology is a subject where speculations rule.

                Hope to get your comments even directly to my mail ID also. . . .

                Best

                =snp

                snp.gupta@gmail.com

                http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.com/

                Pdf download:

                http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/essay-download/1607/__details/Gupta_Vak_FQXi_TABLE_REF_Fi.pdf

                Part of abstract:

                - -Material objects are more fundamental- - is being proposed in this paper; It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material. . . Similarly creation of matter from empty space as required in Steady State theory or in Bigbang is another such problem in the Cosmological counterpart. . . . In this paper we will see about CMB, how it is generated from stars and Galaxies around us. And here we show that NO Microwave background radiation was detected till now after excluding radiation from Stars and Galaxies. . . .

                Some complements from FQXi community. . . . .

                A

                Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on May. 4, 2013 @ 13:43 GMT

                ....... I do love your last two sentences - that is why I am coming back.

                Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 6, 2013 @ 09:24 GMT

                . . . . We should use our minds to down to earth realistic thinking. There is no point in wasting our brains in total imagination which are never realities. It is something like showing, mixing of cartoon characters with normal people in movies or people entering into Game-space in virtual reality games or Firing antimatter into a black hole!!!. It is sheer a madness of such concepts going on in many fields like science, mathematics, computer IT etc. . . .

                B.

                Francis V wrote on May. 11, 2013 @ 02:05 GMT

                Well-presented argument about the absence of any explosion for a relic frequency to occur and the detail on collection of temperature data......

                C

                Robert Bennett wrote on May. 14, 2013 @ 18:26 GMT

                "Material objects are more fundamental"..... in other words "IT from Bit" is true.

                Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 14, 2013 @ 22:53 GMT

                1. It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material.

                2. John Wheeler did not produce material from information.

                3. Information describes material properties. But a mere description of material properties does not produce material.

                4. There are Gods, Wizards, and Magicians, allegedly produced material from nowhere. But will that be a scientific experiment?

                D

                Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 16:22 GMT

                It from bit - where are bit come from?

                Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 06:10 GMT

                ....And your question is like asking, -- which is first? Egg or Hen?-- in other words Matter is first or Information is first? Is that so? In reality there is no way that Matter comes from information.

                Matter is another form of Energy. Matter cannot be created from nothing. Any type of vacuum cannot produce matter. Matter is another form of energy. Energy is having many forms: Mechanical, Electrical, Heat, Magnetic and so on..

                E

                Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 22:08 GMT

                .....Either way your abstract argument based empirical evidence is strong given that "a mere description of material properties does not produce material". While of course materials do give information.

                I think you deserve a place in the final based on this alone. Concise - simple - but undeniable.

                ===============

                Please try Dynamic Universe Model with some numerical values, give initial values of velocities, take gravitation into consideration( because you can not experiment in ISOLATION). complete your numerical experiment.

                later try changing values of masses and initial values of velocities....

                Calculate with different setups and compare your results, if you have done a physical experiment.

                I sincerely feel it is better to do experiment physically, or numerically instead of breaking your head on just logic. This way you will solve your problem faster.....

                Best

                =snp